CBB Matchups

Every D1 game with tempo-free ratings, four factors and market lines, one place.

College basketball is being built for the 2026-27 season (tip-off Nov 3). What's here fills in as games are played.

Non-conferenceNeutral siteSanford Pentagon, Sioux Falls, SDField of 68 Opening Day Marathon

UTEP

Efficiency #279

2025-26: 11-20 · 7-13 conf

N Kentucky

Efficiency #164

2025-26: 20-14 · 12-11 conf

Mon, Nov 2 · 2:00 PM ET

71.0

win 35%

Projected

75.6

win 65%

No line posted yet.

Model: NKU −4.6 · total 146.5 · ratings as of Sat, Oct 3

Preseason ratings start from 2025-26's final adjusted ratings, regressed toward the D1 average. The stats below are 2025-26's too; both update once 2026-27 games are played.

How the projection is built

each step, from an average D-I game to this one

Projected total

Average D-I game

148.2

PaceAdjusted tempo: N Kentucky 70.0, UTEP 66.9 → 68.6 possessions

+0.7

N Kentucky offense vs UTEP defense

+1.1

UTEP offense vs N Kentucky defense

−3.5

Projected total

146.5

Axis starts at 144 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

N Kentucky offense vs UTEP defense

+1.1

UTEP offense vs N Kentucky defense

+3.5

N Kentucky by 4.6

4.6

UTEP side ◂▸ N Kentucky side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help N Kentucky.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 68.6, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, N Kentucky is the faster team (70.9, #58 of 365) and UTEP the slower (66.0, #296). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

68.6

per team, 40 min

Projected total

146.5

model

Projected team totals

71.0 / 75.6

UTEP / N Kentucky

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

66.9#294

UTEP

70.0#49

N Kentucky

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (N Kentucky's defense) is close to a coin flip going forward — the study's model of next-game 3P% barely beats guessing the D1 average. Shot volume is what actually carries: expect UTEP at about 39.3% of its shots from three, N Kentucky about 42.5%.

AdvantageUTEP

Where UTEP struggles: ball control

UTEP turns it over on 17.4% of possessions (#230); N Kentucky forces turnovers on 18.6% of opponent possessions (#68). Expect about 18.3%, 1.5 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -1.9 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageN Kentucky

Where N Kentucky scores: shooting

N Kentucky shoots an effective 53.2% (#93); UTEP allows 51.5% (#187). Expect about 52.5%, 1.3 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.8 points per 100 possessions.

DefenseN Kentucky

N Kentucky's ball-hawking

N Kentucky ranks #30 nationally in steal rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 10.9% of UTEP's possessions to end in a steal against this defense.

UTEP has the ball

OffenseN Kentucky allowsvs D1 avg

48.3% #309

54.2% #305

-0.3 pt/100

17.4% #230

18.6% #68

-1.9 pt/100

26.2% #319

31.6% #236

-1.4 pt/100

33.4% #227

37.2% #245

+0.1 pt/100

70.4% #260

—

-0.2 pt/100

UTEP net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.7 pts/100

N Kentucky has the ball

OffenseUTEP allowsvs D1 avg

53.2% #93

51.5% #187

+1.8 pt/100

16.3% #156

18.0% #98

-0.6 pt/100

32.2% #117

32.8% #293

+1.5 pt/100

35.9% #158

42.0% #321

+0.6 pt/100

72.1% #208

—

-0.0 pt/100

N Kentucky net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +3.2 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers

UTEPoffense vsN Kentuckydefense

Share of shots by zone

UTEP shoots

28.6

9.0

22.3

40.1

N Kentucky allows

42.4

7.5

12.3

37.9

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	61.3%#85	58.4%#159	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	36.4%#259	45.6%#317	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	31.7%#342	38.8%#196	38.0%
Three	33.9%#178	36.6%#333	33.7%

N Kentuckyoffense vsUTEPdefense

Share of shots by zone

N Kentucky shoots

41.8

5.2

8.3

44.6

UTEP allows

38.2

11.2

13.4

37.2

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	60.6%#102	58.8%#178	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	43.0%#104	40.7%#204	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	35.8%#264	42.0%#302	38.0%
Three	33.6%#193	34.0%#182	33.7%

RimShort 2 (≤9 ft)Mid 2 (10 ft+)Three

Zones from play-by-play shot descriptions; garbage time removed. Bars show the share of field-goal attempts in each zone; where a slice is too thin for its number, the shares are listed under the bar. FG% ranks: #1 = best for that side (most accurate shooting, stingiest defense).

Shot volume

Extra scoring chances from rebounds, turnovers and the foul line · 2025-26 numbers

UTEP

−3.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#325 of 365

Off reb %

26.2%

#319

Def reb %

67.2%

#293

Turnover %

17.4%

#230

Forced TO %

18.0%

#98

FT rate

33.4%

#227

FT allowed

42.0%

#321

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.4

Defensive rebounding−0.7

Ball security−0.4

Forcing turnovers+0.9

Foul shots drawn−0.4

Foul shots allowed−1.7

N Kentucky

+1.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#116 of 365

Off reb %

32.2%

#117

Def reb %

68.4%

#236

Turnover %

16.3%

#156

Forced TO %

18.6%

#68

FT rate

35.9%

#158

FT allowed

37.2%

#245

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.6

Defensive rebounding−0.3

Ball security+0.3

Forcing turnovers+1.3

Foul shots drawn+0.2

Foul shots allowed−0.5

N Kentucky has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.6 (#116 of 365) to UTEP’s −3.8 (#325).

Grade = extra shots and foul-line trips per game compared with a D-I average team, built from six season rates. Cell shading is the national rank for each rate (greener = better for that team).

Rotation

UTEP2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted UTEP's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
13	Kaseem Watson	F	Jr	6'9"	31-28	31.4	12.5	5.0	1.5	1.7	47.7%	38.2%	4.9	81.7%	26.3%
15	Jamal West Jr.	F	Sr	6'6"	31-31	31.1	14.5	6.6	1.4	1.9	56.4%	29.6%	0.9	66.3%	27.1%
1	KJ Thomas	G	So	6'1"	31-24	28.5	5.8	2.4	3.0	1.7	44.9%	25.4%	2.0	73.1%	15.7%
33	Elijah Jones	F	Jr	6'8"	31-31	28.1	13.1	5.4	0.5	1.0	55.4%	38.6%	4.1	69.2%	26.9%
4	Caleb Blackwell	G	Jr	6'1"	28-27	30.4	10.6	2.6	2.9	1.7	50.0%	36.4%	4.7	69.6%	23.3%
23	Cassius Brooks	G	Sr	6'0"	30-4	13.8	2.8	1.8	0.7	0.6	43.7%	31.6%	0.6	80.8%	14.8%
11	Trey Horton III	G	Jr	6'5"	25-4	15.2	3.3	1.5	0.7	0.6	39.8%	27.4%	2.9	61.5%	18.0%
7	LA Hayes	G	Jr	6'5"	27-1	11.2	4.3	1.7	0.6	0.4	42.7%	26.3%	1.4	73.9%	25.6%
25	Mouhamed Mbaye	C	Jr	6'10"	24-0	7.0	0.8	1.8	0.0	0.2	40.0%	—	0.0	47.1%	9.5%
5	Tyreese Watson	G	Sr	6'4"	7-5	23.9	8.0	1.9	3.3	3.0	38.7%	29.4%	2.4	60.0%	29.7%
0	David Tubek	F	Jr	6'7"	12-0	8.8	3.3	2.0	0.3	0.7	43.8%	33.3%	1.3	62.5%	27.4%
3	Bobby Montgomery Jr.	G	Fr	6'5"	16-0	5.1	0.8	0.6	0.1	0.3	42.9%	0.0%	0.2	14.3%	15.6%
6	C.J. Smith	F	So	6'7"	11-0	7.4	1.5	1.2	0.1	0.5	38.2%	33.3%	0.8	75.0%	18.2%
2	Jordan Hernandez	G	Jr	5'11"	7-0	4.6	0.6	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.0%	—	0.0	100.0%	8.5%

Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

N Kentucky2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
0	Dan Gherezgher	G	Sr	6'4"	34-29	29.5	15.9	3.2	2.7	2.3	53.4%	37.4%	7.7	73.4%	31.4%
8	Donovan Oday	G	Sr	6'2"	34-16	29.0	18.6	3.8	1.9	2.1	56.9%	33.0%	5.3	81.0%	32.7%
11	Tae Dozier	G	Sr	6'5"	34-29	28.9	8.6	5.2	2.3	0.9	58.2%	33.3%	3.5	66.7%	15.9%
6	Ethan Elliott	G	Fr	6'3"	32-31	28.5	5.1	2.8	4.6	1.4	39.2%	25.6%	2.6	48.6%	15.1%
24	Kael Robinson	F	Sr	6'7"	31-29	26.3	14.4	4.5	1.3	1.5	56.0%	39.2%	5.8	82.0%	28.8%
10	Donovan Rakotonanahary	G	Fr	6'6"	32-0	12.3	3.0	2.3	0.4	0.3	71.1%	33.3%	0.1	55.6%	11.3%
3	Shawn Nelson	G	Sr	6'3"	27-2	11.4	2.9	1.7	0.6	0.8	38.8%	17.6%	1.3	53.3%	20.9%
4	Bryce Darbyshire	G	So	6'4"	25-0	6.8	1.5	1.2	0.4	0.3	58.3%	38.9%	0.7	33.3%	13.0%
1	Ryan Tolliver	G	Fr	6'7"	22-1	6.7	1.0	1.7	0.3	0.4	47.1%	0.0%	0.1	77.8%	10.7%
12	Addison Archer	F	Jr	6'9"	20-0	6.2	1.0	1.3	0.2	0.3	43.3%	50.0%	0.1	70.0%	11.4%
26	Mitchel Minor	G	Sr	5'10"	4-0	1.5	1.8	0.0	0.0	0.3	116.7%	100.0%	0.3	—	33.1%
22	JJ Apathjang	G	Fr	6'4"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
17	Juanma Ruiz	F	Fr	6'9"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—

Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

UTEP2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted UTEP's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
13	Kaseem Watson	F	Jr	6'9"	31-28	31.4	12.5	5.0	1.5	1.7	47.7%	38.2%	4.9	81.7%	26.3%
15	Jamal West Jr.	F	Sr	6'6"	31-31	31.1	14.5	6.6	1.4	1.9	56.4%	29.6%	0.9	66.3%	27.1%
1	KJ Thomas	G	So	6'1"	31-24	28.5	5.8	2.4	3.0	1.7	44.9%	25.4%	2.0	73.1%	15.7%
33	Elijah Jones	F	Jr	6'8"	31-31	28.1	13.1	5.4	0.5	1.0	55.4%	38.6%	4.1	69.2%	26.9%
4	Caleb Blackwell	G	Jr	6'1"	28-27	30.4	10.6	2.6	2.9	1.7	50.0%	36.4%	4.7	69.6%	23.3%
23	Cassius Brooks	G	Sr	6'0"	30-4	13.8	2.8	1.8	0.7	0.6	43.7%	31.6%	0.6	80.8%	14.8%
11	Trey Horton III	G	Jr	6'5"	25-4	15.2	3.3	1.5	0.7	0.6	39.8%	27.4%	2.9	61.5%	18.0%
7	LA Hayes	G	Jr	6'5"	27-1	11.2	4.3	1.7	0.6	0.4	42.7%	26.3%	1.4	73.9%	25.6%
25	Mouhamed Mbaye	C	Jr	6'10"	24-0	7.0	0.8	1.8	0.0	0.2	40.0%	—	0.0	47.1%	9.5%
5	Tyreese Watson	G	Sr	6'4"	7-5	23.9	8.0	1.9	3.3	3.0	38.7%	29.4%	2.4	60.0%	29.7%
0	David Tubek	F	Jr	6'7"	12-0	8.8	3.3	2.0	0.3	0.7	43.8%	33.3%	1.3	62.5%	27.4%
3	Bobby Montgomery Jr.	G	Fr	6'5"	16-0	5.1	0.8	0.6	0.1	0.3	42.9%	0.0%	0.2	14.3%	15.6%
6	C.J. Smith	F	So	6'7"	11-0	7.4	1.5	1.2	0.1	0.5	38.2%	33.3%	0.8	75.0%	18.2%
2	Jordan Hernandez	G	Jr	5'11"	7-0	4.6	0.6	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.0%	—	0.0	100.0%	8.5%

Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

UTEP

Against the spread

Season

13-15

Home

6-7

Road

7-6

Last 10

6-4

avg cover +1.4

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 8 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

11-16-1

Home

4-8-1

Road

7-6

Last 10

3-6-1

avg vs total +1.9

Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 8 as an underdog, 1 push

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 7	Jax StateAdjEM #215	H	L 61–64	−1.0	L−4.0	139.0	U125	91.1	95.6	67.0
Mar 5	Kennesaw StAdjEM #154	H	W 78–71	+3.5	W+10.5	149.0	P149	104.1	94.7	74.9
Feb 28	Western KYAdjEM #159	A	L 65–97	+9.0	L−23.0	146.5	O162	90.2	134.7	72.0
Feb 26	MTSUAdjEM #167	A	L 67–77	+8.5	L−1.5	139.5	O144	98.2	112.8	68.3
Feb 21	New Mexico StAdjEM #178	A	L 63–67	+7.0	W+3.0	143.0	U130	108.2	115.0	58.3
Feb 14	LibertyAdjEM #103	H	L 64–73	+6.5	L−2.5	138.5	U137	104.3	118.9	61.4
Feb 11	Jax StateAdjEM #215	A	W 69–64	+6.5	W+11.5	135.5	U133	115.3	107.0	59.8
Feb 7	New Mexico StAdjEM #178	H	W 91–88 OT	+1.5	W+4.5	138.0	O179	111.7	108.0	81.5
Feb 4	Sam HoustonAdjEM #101	A	L 66–70	+10.0	W+6.0	144.5	U136	94.6	100.4	69.7
Jan 31	DelawareAdjEM #302	H	W 70–55	−6.0	W+9.0	128.0	U125	112.3	88.2	62.3

N Kentucky

Against the spread

Season

13-18

Home

7-7

Road

5-10

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −0.4

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 7 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

21-10

Home

9-5

Road

10-5

Last 10

7-3

avg vs total +4.9

Over 4 straightOver in 5 of 7 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 9	Wright StAdjEM #119	N	L 90–103	+1.0	L−12.0	158.0	O193	114.7	131.3	78.5
Mar 8	Green BayAdjEM #222	N	W 96–76	−4.0	W+16.0	147.5	O172	145.5	115.2	66.0
Mar 4	OaklandAdjEM #172	A	W 85–84	+2.0	W+3.0	162.5	O169	116.5	115.1	73.0
Feb 28	Wright StAdjEM #119	H	L 91–92	−3.0	L−4.0	152.5	O183	130.0	131.4	70.0
Feb 25	Cleveland StAdjEM #330	A	W 81–70	−8.0	W+3.0	165.5	U151	112.2	97.0	72.2
Feb 22	Youngstown StAdjEM #204	A	L 58–64	+2.0	L−4.0	152.5	U122	78.4	86.5	73.9
Feb 18	Purdue FWAdjEM #258	H	W 87–71	−6.0	W+10.0	154.0	O158	122.1	99.7	71.2
Feb 12	IU IndyAdjEM #315	A	W 84–81	−6.0	L−3.0	164.5	O165	118.8	114.6	70.7
Feb 7	MilwaukeeAdjEM #262	H	W 67–62	−7.0	L−2.0	156.5	U129	107.1	99.1	62.6
Feb 4	Green BayAdjEM #222	H	L 84–87 OT	−8.0	L−11.0	150.5	O171	111.3	115.3	75.5

Records vs the closing line describe the past; ten games is a small sample.

Tale of the tape

national rank toned left for away, right for home

UTEPN Kentucky

Efficiency

103.1

109.4

109.2

108.8

66.9

70.0

—

Shooting

48.3%

53.2%

46.5%

55.5%

33.9%

33.6%

70.4%

72.1%

33.4%

35.9%

Ball control & glass

17.4%

16.3%

18.0%

18.6%

26.2%

32.2%

32.8%

31.6%

9.4%

8.8%

8.4%

7.7%

Style

40.3%

44.9%

37.2%

44.6%

13.7%

20.1%

48.0%

55.5%

26.8%

27.3%

Roster

3.07

3.18

6'4.9"

6'4.3"

—

85.4%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input

UTEP

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted UTEP's roster for this season yet — no movement to show.

Returns 100% of last season's minutes. Teams returning at least 65% of last season's minutes have historically gained about 2.2 points of AdjEM (n=156 team-seasons, 2022-2026). (ESPN hasn't posted this season's roster yet -- this may still be last season's list.)

N Kentucky

Returning minutes: 85.4%Returning production: 81.3%

Lost

LJ Wells 29.4 mpg, 14.5 ppg · transferred to Louisville

Added

Juanma Ruiz no D1 minutes last season
JJ Apathjang no D1 minutes last season

No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.

Returns 85% of last season's minutes; lost 1 of its top 5 (1 transferred). Teams returning at least 65% of last season's minutes have historically gained about 2.2 points of AdjEM (n=156 team-seasons, 2022-2026).

Head-to-head

this season and last

No meetings the last two seasons.

The CBB Matchups tab lays out the day's Division I slate: matchup, tip time, records and rank, and — once posted — Pinnacle's spread and total (the median across books when Pinnacle has no line). Three views switch the table between projected scores, pace and totals, and each team's offensive and defensive tendencies. Each game opens into opponent-adjusted possessions, efficiency and four-factor tendencies for both teams, plus recent form, rotation and head-to-head history. Every game also carries our projected score, spread and total, built bottom-up from those same numbers: expected possessions times each side's opponent-adjusted points per possession, plus home court.

What these numbers mean: line shopping.